1001 Senator
Bartlett: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for the
Environment and Heritage—

(1) What
is the total quantity of untreated sewage discharged from vessels into
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park each year.

(2) What
is the amount of sewage treated to a standard less than tertiary treatment
that is discharged into the marine park.

(3) Are
there any plans for eliminating the discharge of untreated waste into
the marine park.

(4) What
is the status of the plan to require tertiary treatment for all sewerage
treatment plants that discharge into the marine park.

(5) Are
there requirements for pump out facilities to be installed in marinas,
harbours and/or ports along the Great Barrier Reef coast.

(6) Is
there a requirement that new facilities contain pump-out facilities.

(7) With
reference to page 34 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s
report 2001-02, which indicates both a reduction in the number of trawlers
and an increased profitability of remaining trawlers: Are there any
figures on: (a) the relative levels of catch; and (b) catch per unit
effort in the 18 months since the trawl plan took effect.

(8) When
are the results of the seabed recovery work being done by the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation expected to be available.

(9) With
reference to page 35 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s
report 2001-02, which notes that agreement has been reached with the
Queensland Government regarding management of the take of pipefish and
seahorses by trawlers, and given that the report also indicates that
agreement was reached on measures that need to be introduced to monitor
the impact of trawling on these species: What is the current level of:
(a) pipefish; and (b) seahorse take by trawlers.

(10) What
are the current estimated population levels in the marine park of those
species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .

(11) What
are the agreed measures for monitoring pipefish and/or seahorse take.

(12) What
are potential measures to reduce the take of those threatened species.

(13) (a)
Is it true that prohibitions on spawning aggregations are no longer
in the Reef Line Fishing Plan; (b) was it in earlier drafts of the plan;
(c) did the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority support its earlier
inclusion; and (d) does the authority support the targeting of spawning
aggregations under this plan.

(14) Given
that the Government has indicated it will reintroduce regulations relating
to commercial netting in Princess Charlotte Bay, and given that approximately
16 fishers that have a history of regularly using the bay: (a) how many
of those 16 had other endorsements; and (b) what were the other endorsements.

(15) Of
the total commercial netting effort in the bay, historically, how much
of the effort occurred outside the conservation zone, including intertidal
and estuarine netting.

(16) What
is the total bill that the authority has submitted to the Queensland
Government for monitoring and other work at Nelly Bay Harbour.

(17) (a)
Has the authority inspected the ferry landing area; (b) is it the case
that the concrete at the ferry landing is cracking; and (c) has the
authority signed off on the landing facilities.

(18) Given
that at the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts Legislation Committee estimate hearings on 20 November 2002,
the authority indicated there were concerns with sediment at Nelly Bay:
Can details be provided of the nature, status and proposed solutions
to those concerns.

(19) Given
that at the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts Legislation Committee estimate hearings on 20 November 2002,
the authority indicated that there was an ‘excision’ issue in relation
to Nelly Bay: Is it correct that this relates to the need for water
to be permanently present between the breakwater and the mainland of
Magnetic Island

(20) Is
it correct that the authority is recommending a re-profiling of areas
inside the harbour in order to ensure that separation is maintained;
if so, can a description of the authority requirements be provided.

(21) Is
this issue the subject of any dispute with the state government.

(22) Based
on current design, depths and sedimentation rates and the changes in
beach profile requested by the authority, how frequently is dredging
expected to be required inside Nelly Bay harbour or in the access channel.

(23) Has
the authority had any discussions with the state, the contractor or
others in relation to a proposed groyne at Nelly Bay; if so, can details
be provided of: (a) the nature and status of the proposal; and (b) any
discussions that have been held.

(24) With
reference to the answer to question on notice no. 525 (Senate Hansard , 17 September 2002, p. 4323) in which the authority
provided a summary of pending coastal development applications to the
Senate: How many additional staged developments are there along the
Queensland coast for which there are no current Commonwealth applications,
but which have indicated an intent to move to a subsequent development
stage.

(25) How
many coastal development approvals issued by local or state governments
are currently on the books that have not yet been acted upon but are
still valid.

(26) With
reference to page 30 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s
report 2001-02, which indicates that the authority acted as advisory
agency on a number of occasions under the Integrated Planning Act: (a)
How many advices were provided; and (b) for which development proposals.

(27) To
what extent have the recommendations contained in advices been followed
by the relevant state authority.

(28) With
reference to page 28 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s
report 2001-02 which lists one of the outputs of the authority as the
‘pollution status of Cleveland Bay’: Can an outline of the pollution
issues relating to Cleveland Bay be provided.

(29) (a)
Is the Queensland nickel outfall discharge pipe still operational; and
(b) are there plans to cease discharge from that pipe.

1004 Senator
Bishop: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans'
Affairs—With reference to paragraph 6.22 in the Australian National
Audit Office report no. 6 into fraud control in the Department of Veterans’
Affairs, tabled in the Senate on 29 August 2002 and the estimate in
the department’s Fraud Control Plan that up to $15 million may be
at risk to fraud in the medical accounts treatment processing system:

(1) (a)
What specific items of medical services were included in that estimate;
and (b) what was the estimate against each item.

(2) For
each of the past 3 years, what amounts have been recovered, by state,
from: (a) providers of medical services, by type; (b) providers of community
nursing; (c) providers of other home care and domestic services; and
(d) other providers of health-related services.

(3) What
resources are specifically allocated in each state office to fraud control
and management in the health area.

(4) For
each state in the past year, how many health providers have been interviewed
or counselled with respect to claims lodged for payment.

(5) In
each of the past 5 years, how many providers of health services have
been prosecuted for fraudulent claims.

(6) In
each of the past 5 years, how many veterans in relation to fraudulent
travel claims have been: (a) investigated; and (b) prosecuted.

(7) In
each of the past 5 years how many transport contractors in relation
to fraudulent claims have been: (a) investigated; and (b) prosecuted.

(8) With
reference to state offices, what instructions exist for the implementation
of the fraud control plan.

1005 Senator
O’Brien: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—

(1) (a)
What discussions has the Minister undertaken with Japanese officials
during 2002 in relation to Australian beef imports to Japan known as
‘Aussie Beef’; (b) who attended each meeting; (c) when did each
meeting occur; (d) what was discussed at each meeting; and (e) what
records were kept of each meeting.

(2) (a)
What discussions has the Minister had with Japanese officials specifically
in relation to the import restrictions known as the ‘snap-back’;
(b) who attended each meeting; (c) when did each meeting occur; (d)
what was discussed at each meeting; and (e) what records were kept of
each meeting.

(3) Is
the ‘snap-back’ calculated on total beef imports into Japan, or
on a country-by-country basis.

(4) Will
the ‘snap-back’ be invoked on Australian beef imports to Japan during
the 2002-03 and 2003-04 financial years.